On Apr 9, 8:26 pm, "Dr. Bipolar" <doctorsalway...@theglobalasylum.com>
wrote:

"Marvin The Paranoid Android" <marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:1176172577.647506.326970@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 9, 8:26 pm, "Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 9, 6:15 am, "Marvin The Paranoid Android"

<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 7, 3:16 pm, "Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:

Thanks for the thoughtful reply rather than joining the personal
attacks that are flying around the group (because that's all they've
got, as Dani acknowleged).
Cheers...

No prob!

Cheers!

Uh...that isn't what Dani said, Stevie, or what she meant, either. She
acknowledged that, before she made that parting remark, that regular
posters have been into the same merry-go-round 'debates' with you many
times over, and your various debate tactics of obfuscation, convolution,
denial, recreation, ad nauseam, always bring the gist of the thread debate
back to one single, inescapable self-conclusion --

That you are unable to deal with facts?

Steven Douglas wrote:

On Apr 9, 7:36 pm, "Marvin The Paranoid Android"
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 9, 8:26 pm, "Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 9, 6:15 am, "Marvin The Paranoid Android"

<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 7, 3:16 pm, "Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:

Some of more notorious *lies of the left* include: Saddam gave his
full cooperation to the UN weapons inspectors, only to have the evil
Bush pull them out of there while they were making grand progress;

You're off to a bad start when you have to toss out that straw-man
argument. Of course he wasn't cooperating fully

You say that now, but I remember reading various posts on this group
where posters either implied or said outright that Saddam was
cooperating. And I still hear it on occasion on leftist talk radio, or
read it in leftist blogs.

but Blix didn't suggest invading was the answer. He requested
more time. Bush wouldn't allow it -- the invasion was a unilateral
decision by The Decider.

Not exactly. Tony Blair and the Prime Minister of Spain (among others)
were involved in the decision.

Spain nor the UK were going to invade without the U.S. Their troop
contributions were small compared to the U.S. troop count.

Nobody forced Bush to invade.

And nobody forced the others to go along. Do you think Bush would have
made the same decision without overwhelming Congressional approval,
and the without the allies who comprised the coaltion?

Yes. Without a doubt.

The 'Allies' were contributing a very small fraction of the fighting
force.

There have been enough books published by former insiders that this
Admin was gunning for Iraq on 9-12-2001. Rummy wanted bettter targets
then those available in Afghanistan.

Joe Wilson debunked Bush's famous 16 words in a State of the
Union address;

Bush's 16 words were retracted at the request of the CIA.

Only several months after Bush had spoken them.

There was no solid evidence of what transpired during the meeting --
no signed documents, no transcripts, no discussion of purchasing
uranium.

How do you know what discussion did or did not take place? An Iraqi
official was on a trade mission to Niger. Iraq bought uranium from
Niger in the 1980s. So, if not uranium, what do you think the Iraqi
official wanted to buy from Niger?

How do you know what was discussed?

Is an unconfirmed assumption enough for you to justify this war?

If not then why bring it up.

The CIA
sent Wilson to Niger to investigate whether Iraq had tried to purchase
uranium. The Brits felt Iraq had attempted to buy uranium based on a
visit by an Iraqi gov't official in 1999. The Brits *assumed* that
the purpose of the visit was related to purchasing uranium since 75%
of Nigers exports are uranium. The CIA looked into this and found
nothing to suggest that that was the purpose of the visit. There was a
complete lack of hard evidence (other then the forged document).

The forged documents are a distraction. The forged documents had
nothing to do with Bush's use of the 16 words, which were words that
were cleared (at the time) by the CIA.

Bush is such an evil mastermind that he was able to easily
dupe a bunch of feeble Democrats into voting against their better
judgement;

'Iraq ... Saddam ... Al Qaeda ... September the 11th ... WMDs ... the
lessons of September the 11th ... Saddam ... mushroom cloud over an
American city ... Al Qaeda ... '

And don't forget all of the Clinton administration officials who were
speaking similar words prior to 2001.

My recollection is an almost non-stop fear campaign by the Bush Admin
-- Cheney in particular with Bush and Rice not far behind. Colin
Powell I feel the worst for -- his chief of staff Col. Wilkinson
stated that the 'intelligence' Cheney's office gave them for his U.N.
presentation was pathetic.

Powell had the Clinton appointed CIA director sitting right at his
side when he gave that address to the U.N. That presentation was
approved by the Clinton appointed CIA director.

Powell regrets his presentation at the UN. He regards it as the
lowest point in his career.

Clintons appointed CIA director became a little too chummy with this
Admin it seems.

How do you suggest that 70% of Americans thought Saddam was
responsible for the September 11th attacks??

I don't know. I never thought Saddam was involved in 9/11. I can only
suggest that many Americans are obviously more interested in Britney
Spears and Anna Nicole Smith than in what's actually going on in the
world. I don't remember anyone making the case that Saddam was
involved in 9/11.

I won't disagree much with you here but I believe there was a
deliberate attempt by the Admin to constantly put the words 'Saddam',
'Al Qaeda', '9-11' and 'Weapons of mass destruction' in close
proximity to one another -- over and over and over and over again.

I pay attention, and I never came close to believing Saddam was
involved in 9/11. I'm still trying to figure out how I missed that
supposed effort to make that case.

It was pretty obvious that the BobbleHead Tours (Sunday News Prog) and
speeches had the words 'Al Qaeda', 'Nuclear Weapons Program', 'Sept
the 11th', 'Saddam Hussein' in close proximity.

They did their best to paint Iraq as an immiment threat by connecting
him to Al Qaeda and WMD's -- thus by extension if he was working with
Al Qaeda then he was responsible for 9-11 and was an immediate threat
because he would supply them with a nuclear weapon which would likely
be used against Americans on American soil unless you fought them over
there ... seems like yesterday.

LOL -- do this without
dodging the question by asking another question.

Bush knowingly lied about WMD intelligence; in fact, he was
even able to control foreign intelligence agencies so that they
believed his lies too!

***** Cheney to this day still distorts the intelligence suggesting Al
Qaeda was training in Iraq prior to the invasion ( I believe he's
careful with his wording to not suggest they were present prior to
Sept 11 tho ... I may be wrong).

But that doesn't explain the Democrats in Congress, or Tony Blair, or
other leaders of other nations, or President Clinton, or the Clinton
appointed CIA director, or many other Clinton officials, believing
Saddam possessed WMD.

That's why the inspectors were in Iraq, right? To do their job. Blix
wanted more time to determine the validity of that claim that Saddam
did in fact have WMDs.

No, the inspectors were there to account for WMD the Iraqi government
was known to have had. Blix said the government of Iraq was not
answering the questions. He said the government of Iraq should have
been able to account for known WMD, and they were not cooperating.

Because they didn't have the WMD's might have been the next conclusion
if more time was allowed.

Blix didn't give up. He was forced out by 'Shock and Awe'.

There may not have been full cooperation but I
suspect there could have been other options better then 'Shock and
Awe' which made death and destruction sound like a video game.

What other options? Saddam could have prevented every bit of this by
simply cooperating with the inspectors.

Bush could have avoided this by allowing the inspectors more time.

There was international consensus that the inspectors needed more time
to do their work.

There was a horrible amount of fear-mongering done by this
administration (yes -- I'm sure the Clinton's did it too) but it was
Cheney, Rice and Bush that jumped up and down on the panic button
every chance they could on the Sunday Morning Bobble Head Shows
like Meet The Press, etc.

Maybe because there was a general consensus among the world's
intelligence agencies that Saddam was a threat. Clinton did use the
word "threat" to describe Saddam on more than one occasion.

There may have been a general consensus that he was possibly a threat
but that's why the inspectors were there, right?

Yes. But then, by his lack of cooperation, Saddam stupidly continued
to make himself appear as an ongoing threat. On March 7, 2003, Hans
Blix reported to the Security Council and issued a couple hundred
pages worth of known documented WMD that Saddam was refusing to
account for.

Why was he refusing to account for it? Because he didn't have it, as
we know now.

Given more time the inspectors may have come to this conclusion.

The Pentagon just released a report indicating 'inappropriate' use by
the office of Douglas Feith of intelligence data deemed unreliable .
That unreliable data was leaked to the press which the admin then
pointed to as validation for their fear mongering.

Yes, I'm always impressed with 20/20 hindsight.

The data was regarded as unreliable by the CIA but Feith's office
picked it up and put it into circulation (leaked to the media) because
the 'evidence' fit the case for war.

That alone was not the case for war. There was plenty of "slam dunk"
intelligence coming from the CIA.

Then why the need for Feith's bad data?

In order to hold up their leftist lies, leftists must entirely ignore
the years that President Clinton and his administration made their
case that Saddam was a potential threat with his ongoing WMD programs.
And, of course, with their creative imaginations, leftists can ignore
anything that takes ANY bit of blame away from the evil Bush!

Good try but here's my point -- Clinton has nothing to do with this.

How can you say that? He was railing against Saddam for the last
several years of his presidency. He was going on the same kind of
intelligence that Bush was given. In fact, it was given to Bush by the
Clinton appointed CIA director, who told Bush the WMD intelligence was
a "slam dunk."

That was an unfortunate phrase, wasn't it?

Yes, it was. So does the fact the Clinton appointed CIA director was
so sure of his intelligence mean anything? Or is it still all Bush's
fault?

No not all Bush's ... Cheney deserves a fair bit of the blame as
well. He was at CIA headquarters enough times to make it known they
wanted intelligence indicating Saddam was a threat.

He and Libby used raw intelligence to help build the case for war.
How many times have we heard Cheney say that there was no
doubt Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear weapons program??

This psychotic is still stating Al Qaeda and Iraq were working together
even tho Pentagon reports state flatly that the opposite is true.

The inspectors were on the ground. If the Admin felt certain of WMDs
they could have given what data they had to the inspectors. Reading
'Fiasco' by WaPo's Thomas E. Ricks, it's clear that when the defense
department personnel looked at the list of possible WMD sites, they
realized it was a joke. Much of the information was well outdated and
non-prioritized -- they had no clue where to start. It didn't take
them long before they realize that there was a very real possibility
that Saddam didn't possess any WMDs. The ISG that came afterwards
confirmed this.

Yes, but Saddam was supposed to account for his known WMD. He never
did. Who knows what happened to that stuff? Some small quantities have
been found here and there, but there are still large quantities of WMD
that he never accounted for.

Yes. He refused to account for it since he had none. He was a paper
tiger.

Sooner or later the inspectors would have come to this conclusion.

The ISG's Kay stated 'We were wrong'.

This could have been avoided if Bush had given the inspectors the
time.

The inspectors were on the ground in Iraq for a mere 3 months and were
requesting more time to look for WMDS -- strangely enough they weren't
finding any evidence of WMDs. The UNSC wouldn't OK the use of
military force at that time. Bush acted unilaterally.

Stop using the word unilaterally. How do you dismiss Tony Blair so
easily? Or all the leaders of other nations who agreed with the
decision? And before you (or someone else) call all those nations
banana republics, I don't think Australia qualifies as a banana
republic. Nor does Poland, nor Italy, nor several other European
nations.

Because Tony Blair, Poland, Spain or Australia weren't going to cross
the border from Kuwait into Iraq on their own.

But you think Bush would have done it alone? If Blair or the others
were completely against it?

Yes. Bush did it when the UN was against it why would he bother if
two more countries were against it?

Clinton was not in power. Bush was the commander in chief. You seem
bent on removing all responsibility from the Commander In Chief as if
he had no power to make a clear and proper decision --

Not true. In fact, it's many other posters here who want to remove all
responsibility from Congress, and place all responsibility on Bush.
Bush certainly warrants his share of responsibility, but he did not do
this alone. He had a lot of help. And that's all I'd like some of the
deniers on this group to acknowledge. Congress and the Presidency are
co-equal branches of government in this country. They have different
responsibilities, and one of Congress' responsibilities is to either
give or deny the President authorization for the use of military
force. Then, of course, the President can still act without
authorization, but Congress could quickly put a stop to it by refusing
to renew any funding. They each have tremendous power, but neither
has unlimited power.

They authorized the use of force if necessary. Bush deemed it
necessary. He's said as much himself -- he is 'The Decider'.

Saddam made it necessary by his continuing lack of cooperation.

Bush made it necessary by painting Saddam as a immediate threat even
when the UN had weapons inspectors on the ground.

it's all the
lefts fault. FYI, I'm a conservative (of course one from Canuckistan)
but I'm not one who lightly disregards the value of Life.

As if I am? I hate the loss of innocent life. I detest the terrorists
in Iraq who are targeting innocent Iraqis in an effort to cause the
American people to lose their will to win in Iraq. I want those
terrorists defeated.

I think the 'terrorists' are participants in a civil war. U.S. troops
for the most part are getting caught in the cross fire. I think the
'war' is lost personally -- there was a short period of time early in
the occupation for success but that time has passed, sorry to say.

Although I don't believe U.S. troops should be completely withdrawn I
do believe they need to be pulled back and let events run their course
in Iraq -- it will get much bloodier but that may be what is needed
for Sunni's and Shiites to come to some sort of political agreement.
The U.S. needs to secure Iraq's borders and prevent the ensuing
carnage from engulfing the whole region into a much larger conflict.

Wow. Okay. I acknowledge your opinion but I disagree with most of it,
especially the part about allowing it to become much bloodier. I'd
prefer to give General Petraeus a chance to operate his new strategy,
and hope for the best. And hope the Iraqi government will step up and
take over security as soon as possible.

Bush has been hoping the same thing for the past three years but has
still not managed to make any progress. Instead the situation has
gotten increasingly worse.

I suppose if there had been competent leadership and planning and a
commitment of adequate resources this mess would not have come to be.

The problem is that the U.S. had it's chance to get it right but
fucked up. Iraqi's want your troops out of their country and don't
feel you're helping any longer. The bloodshed may decrease, but who
knows -- it's a complicated situation, isn't it??

What's at stake now is having this explode into a regional conflict
between Sunnis and Shiite's. Securing the borders is one way to keep
neighboring countries from interferring.

So -- here's where we are: because the general consensus of
intelligence agencies was that Saddam was a threat, Congress approved
the use of military force to remove Saddam from power. And Bush (along
with Blair and others) used that authority. And we're there now. Now
what? Quit? Surrender? And what do you think will happen in Iraq if we
do that?

See above.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply rather than joining the personal
attacks that are flying around the group (because that's all they've
got, as Dani acknowleged).
Cheers...

No prob!

Cheers!

Cheers!

Cheers!

On Apr 7, 4:49 pm, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:

After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, Woodswun
<woods...@tepidmail.com> Spat the Words

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 12:16:04 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:

Some of more notorious *lies of the left* include: Saddam gave his
full cooperation to the UN weapons inspectors, only to have the evil
Bush pull them out of there while they were making grand progress;

Wilson debunked Bush's famous 16 words in a State of the Union
address; Bush is such an evil mastermind that he was able to easily
dupe a bunch of feeble Democrats into voting against their better
judgement; Bush knowingly lied about WMD intelligence; in fact, he

even able to control foreign intelligence agencies so that they
believed his lies too!

In order to hold up their leftist lies, leftists must entirely

the years that President Clinton and his administration made their
case that Saddam was a potential threat with his ongoing WMD

And, of course, with their creative imaginations, leftists can

anything that takes ANY bit of blame away from the evil Bush!

Below is a link to an interesting article -- I hope you'll have the
intellectual honesty to read *all* of it before responding.

Who Is Lying About Iraq?
by Norman Podhoretz
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540

I'd kind of like to know who claimed that Saddam gave his "full
cooperation" to the UN inspectors? I don't recall anyone making that
statement.

This is more of the confusion among the Bush faithful.

I see, so instead of an actual point by point refutation,

all you've
got are your usual meaningless platitudes. That's about par for you.

They are trying to defend that which is indefensible, so
they are forced to create fictitious attacks which they
believe they do have some defense against.

Some psycho-therapists are going to make millions off all
these screwed up neocons.. they have literally created
a complete alternate reality they live in nearly 24x7.

How about an actual refutation? Are you capable? I seriously doubt it.